Home
Links
Arts & Video
News Archives
Viewpoints
Search
Interact
About LaborNet

Protect UAW Retirees: Their Future is Our Future
UAW New Directions Movement  October 21, 2005

     COLLABORATION BETWEEN the UAW and GM, over 20 years in the making, 
is well known and now accepted as SOP. Although rarely discussed openly, 
its footprints are everywhere.  A prime example is the current "tentative 
agreement" which would force retirees to pay  a  bigger percentage of their 
health care  and active workers to pick up the tab. At the same time, fearful 
of backlash from members, the union has filed a lawsuit preventing UAW 
retirees from taking legal action against GM.     

     The current round of collaboration began in April 2005 after UAW 
President Ron Gettelfinger told GM, "Don't Push Me." He assured anxious and 
angry workers that he would not open the contract to alter health care 
benefits and that GM could not unilaterally alter retirement benefits. He 
promised to work within the confines of the contract. He then attended 
secret meetings with Delphi, other major suppliers, and the Big Three. 
After consulting with Wall Street analysts1 Gettelfinger did in fact open 
the contract thus allowing GM to change health care benefits for existing 
retirees. What GM could not legally do themselves, Gettelfinger did for them.

     What is shocking about the lawsuit is that it makes the collaboration 
so transparent. By getting a couple proxies to file a class action lawsuit 
against GM (and providing lawyers), the union could both 'manage' the scope 
of the suit and be declared the sole representatives of UAW-GM retirees. This 
means retirees will not be able to file a class action suit of their own, nor 
have an independent say in any proposed remedy. This set-up leaves the door 
open for further cuts in retiree benefits. 

     The Detroit Free Press reported, "A statement from GM said the car 
company 'supports this action.' GM and the UAW agreed, as part of the overall 
tentative settlement announced on Oct. 17, 2005, that the UAW would seek court 
approval. GM also agreed to work with the UAW to expedite such reviews and 
approval. Today's action constitutes the initial step in implementing this 
element of the agreement.'" [Detroit Free Press, Retirees Worry as UAW Seeks 
Court OK, 10/19/05]

     No wonder GM "supports this action." With the 'cooperation' of the UAW 
GM is protected from UAW retirees after successfully altering their health 
care benefits. This type of cooperation has a name, company unionism. It is 
the policy of the Administrative Caucus.

     UAW retirees should attend court proceedings in full force and demand 
first, that their opinions be included in the suit, and second, that any 
court approval of post retirement concessions be contingent on retirees' 
right to vote.

          Single-Payer National Health Care
		  
     What happened to the union's demand for GM to support a Single-Payer 
National Health Care System? Why wasn't action on health care reform a 
precondition to discussions on health care? Both the company and the union 
understand the importance of a universal health care system.   Both could 
have lobbied Congress, built support in the working class, and showed that 
unions aren't just for current members. All Big Three contracts with the 
CAW state, " Publicly funded health care . . .has been a significant factor 
in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada."  Furthermore 
they pledge to lobby federal and provincial governments for it. 

     What accounts for the difference? Many of us would link it to the UAW's 
collaboration/jointness model of unionism, something the CAW has resisted 
for many years. So where does that leave UAW retirees and active workers?

     If the UAW accepts the premise that workers should bear the burden of 
a wasteful, inefficient health care system, what hope do less fortunate, 
nonunion workers have?  Gettelfinger says "Single Payer National Healthcare 
has long been a goal of the UAW." But, these are water over the damned words, 
meant to soothe and pacify the sleeping giant into silence. If rank and file 
passivity were not the goal, the UAW would promote national healthcare as 
the best solution for all working people not with words, but with actions. 
Instead of forcing the Big Three to demand Universal Health Care as the 
logical solution to their cost differential with foreign automakers, 
the International is honing the corporate ax against workers.

     Did Wagoner and Gettelfinger attend the same sugar coated seminar, or 
did they simply get their stories straight? Wagoner told the Associated Press, 
"Health care costs in this country are out of control. We would really like 
to see much more focus and leadership from elected officials especially in 
Washington." His words belie his actions.

     UAW members should not let GM and the other auto companies make them 
pay for mismanagement and the inexcusable failure to conduct business in a 
socially responsible way.  For UAW members, active and retired, this latest 
product of the collaboration/jointness model of unionism puts us on another 
'slippery slope' of unwarranted givebacks. Does anyone believe it's the last 
time, and that they won't be back for more?  On behalf of themselves and 
all American workers, UAW members should reject this assault on the hard-
fought gains of retirees.

     UAW members should proceed without concern for corporate America (GM), 
but should proceed with deep concern and utmost diligence for the well-being 
of America's working class. We urge UAW members to vote against these 
concessions first and foremost to protect retirees, who not only sacrificed 
for our well-being, but who do not have the right to vote on contracts. If 
we open the door to concessions on retiree health care, then we set a 
precedent for more concessions in the future. The UAW lawsuit against GM 
doesn't prevent cuts in health care for retirees, it endorses the UAW's 
collaboration with corporations in executing changes the company wants. 
Active members jeopardize their own security by endorsing such a policy.

          Unanswered Questions
		  
     There are some fundamental questions that the International should 
answer about how this plan affects members.

     It is important to see the whole agreement and have time to digest it. 
The Highlights, as past experience has shown  are not sufficient.

     A major change that has already been announced is that the defined 
benefit will be converted to a "defined contribution VEBA". What is the
difference between defined benefit and defined contribution and how will 
it affect members?

     Who will control the VEBA? In the past GM has taken money out of the 
VEBA for capital investments. What happened to the original VEBA?

     GM is committed to pay one billion into the VEBA in 2005, 2006, and 
2011. What happens in the gap between 2007 and 2011? A new Agreement with 
new concessions? More COLA diversions? Is this a set up for 2007?

     If benefit claims exceed contributions what happens? Will costs be 
passed onto retirees? The maximum annual increase for out of pocket expenses 
would be 3% per year for retirees. Does that mean 18% by the expiration 
in 2011?

     Will there be limits to the plan? For example, will the plan 
discriminate against the mentally or chronically ill or people with rare 
diseases by limiting or denying coverage? Will there be a cap on total 
payouts?  Who will administer this plan? Is this another jointness plan 
to provide job security for International appointees at the expense of 
workers?

          Why is COLA so Important?

     The major reason autoworkers in the Big Three make above average wages 
is cost of living. There were many years when we did not receive raises 
despite productivity gains. But thanks to retirees who struck GM in 1970 
for ten weeks, our wages rose with inflation. When inflation went through 
the roof during the Reagan years, our wages rose with the rate of inflation. 
While non union workers lost spending power due to inflation our standard 
of living was maintained. COLA is one of the most important factors in our 
contract. COLA ensures that we will be able to pay our bills when gas and 
heating prices rise.

     As former New Directions leader and UAW Local 599 President, Dave 
Yettaw  said, "The corporations are playing chess, but the UAW is playing 
checkers." Which is to say the companies not only have a long term plan 
to shift the burden of health care costs onto workers, they want to 
eliminate COLA in the bargain. COLA Diversion to pay for health care 
and other benefits is an alarming trend.

COLA Diversion is a code phrase for money diverted from wages to offset 
the cost of Health Care. Below is a short history of COLA diversion.

          COLA Diversions for Health Care:
          1964.... 2 cents per hour
          1967.... 2
          1976.... 6
          1982...16
          1984...13
          1987...00
          1990...14
          1993...22
          1996...  2
          1999...002 

     In simple English COLA Diversion amounts to a health care premium. 
Not adjusting for inflation, or accounting for overtime, or calculating 
Travel COLA concessions, the accumulated COLA diversion amounts to a 
minimum of $1,500 per year.

     On top of that, in the 2003 Agreement 2 cents per quarter from COLA 
(8 cents a year) was diverted to pay for pensions. These diversions add up 
over time and represent a permanent loss. We not only accepted a reduction 
in pension improvement, we paid for it. On top of that in the 2003 
Agreement the rate of health care inflation was deducted from the COLA 
formula. With all these deductions we are rapidly approaching a zero cost 
of living adjustment.

     Now GM wants another dollar an hour. Where will it end?

          Does anybody but GM make out Here?

     "This is opening the door to a whole new era of collaboration between 
labor and management," said David Cole, auto analyst. Is Cole aware of 
a new layer of jointness/collaboration  another class of UAW self-serving 
bureaucrats  lining up jobs, managing a VEBA, and administering a health 
care plan for UAW members? There is every reason to think this might be 
the case.  Remember how joint funds grew from a nickel to nineteen cents 
per hour, plus up to five dollars for overtime? How is it that during all 
this talk of concessions we never heard of any concessions in joint funds? 
How is it GM can afford joint fund donations of nineteen cents per hour 
but not health care?

     Things weren't always this way in the UAW. Before collaboration 
members and officers aligned themselves for the well-being of a nation, 
and were willing to fight for the greater good of all working people. 
Today's retirees were  those workers who fought for justice. They 
deserve our support.  They won pension, health care, and cost of living 
for us. If we abandon retirees now, we cast our fate with the jackals.

www.uawndm.org


contact LaborNet

copyright 2005 © LaborNet